If Tv`s So Bad, Why Watch It?

RAY RECCHI

February 27, 1992|By RAY RECCHI, Lifestyle Columnist

When I read about the report on the deficiencies of commercial television, issued by the American Psychological Association, I was reminded of the joke about the man who urges his friend not to go to a particular restaurant because ``the food is lousy and the portions are too small.``

According to the psychologists` report, commercial TV doesn`t give viewers what they want. The report also bemoans the fact that too many people spend too much time watching TV.

It sounds like a study that found only what it wanted to find. After all, if commercial television isn`t giving people what they want, why are so many spending so much time watching it?

The report states that children, the elderly, minorities and women spend the most time watching TV, but that those groups are not portrayed as they really are.

There`s a shocker, eh? After all, TV doesn`t present anyone as they really are. For one thing, they`re a lot smaller on TV than in real life, unless you happen to have one of those really huge screens. For another, I submit that no one would watch TV if it portrayed people as they really are.

REALITY -- WHO NEEDS IT?

Who wants reality? If I want reality, I`ll turn off the TV. Reality is, by nature, mundane. I want laughter, excitement, adventure.

Although I`m quite happy with the life I lead, I wouldn`t watch a TV show about it.

That doesn`t mean I like everything on TV. Like everyone else, I watch what I like and ignore what I don`t like. That is why I believe it is foolish to criticize commercial TV. Because it is commercial, it can survive only if people watch it. And if so many people are watching it, how can it not be giving people what they want?

Unfortunately, TV has been a target of the politically correct crowd since before the phrase ``politically correct`` was coined. For whatever reason, there is a belief among those people that commercial TV should somehow be a vehicle for social change.

So while commercial TV is criticized for not portraying people as they really are on the one hand, it is also criticized for not portaying people as the politically correct crowd believes they should be.

About the average woman on TV, for example, the report says she is ``beautiful, dependent, helpless, passive, concerned with interpersonal relations, warm and valued for her appearance more than for her capabilities and competencies.``

GOLDEN AGE LOSES GLITTER

For starters, that`s just not true. And I don`t need a study to prove it. It doesn`t apply to the women on Cosby, Designing Women, L.A. Law, Northern Exposure and a lot of other shows, except that the women on those shows usually are attractive.

Sure, there are a lot of TV women who fit the profile the psychologists bemoan. But there are a lot of them in real life, too.

Also in the report was a recommendation that the Federal Communications Commission revert to the philosophy of the Communications Act of 1934, which requires broadcasters to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity in order to keep their licenses. According to the report, those principles were diluted during the `80s.

But I wonder if it`s advisable to turn back the clock nearly 60 years to enforce a bill passed before commercial television even existed. For that matter, it even seems inadvisable to go back to TV`s Golden Age, when the principles of that bill still were being followed, according to the psychologists` report.

Would Amos `n Andy be preferable to the Cosby Show or Fresh Prince of Bel Air? Were Gunsmoke or Wagon Train less violent than today`s cop shows? Did I Love Lucy portray women -- or Hispanics, for that matter -- in a positive light? No, no and no.

That is not to say commercial TV is perfect, however, or even as good as it can be.